Interim profile, incomplete information
Taxonomic name: Rutilus rutilus (Linnaeus, 1758)
Synonyms: Cyprinus fulvus Vallot 1837, Cyprinus jaculus Jurine 1825, Cyprinus lacustris Pallas 1814, Cyprinus pigus Gronow 1854, Cyprinus rubellio Leske 1774, Cyprinus rutilus L., Cyprinus simus Hermann 1804, Cyprinus xanthopterus Vallot 1737, Gardonus pigulus Bonaparte 1841, Gardonus ruboculus Walecki 1863, Leuciscus decipiens Agassiz 1835, Leuciscus jurinii Dybowski 1862, Leuciscus lividus Heckel 1843, Leuciscus pallens Blanchard 1866, Leuciscus pausingeri Heckel 1843, Leuciscus pigus dojranensis Karaman 1928, Leuciscus prasinus Agassiz 1835, Leuciscus rutiloides Selys-Longchamps 1842, Leuciscus rutilus aurata Fatio 1882, Leuciscus rutilus auratus Yakovlev 1873, Leuciscus rutilus bolmensis Malm 1877, Leuciscus rutilus communis Rossikov 1895, Leuciscus rutilus communis Yakovlev 1873, Leuciscus rutilus crassa Fatio 1882, Leuciscus rutilus elata Fatio 1882, Leuciscus rutilus elongata Fatio 1882, Leuciscus rutilus erytraea Antipa 1909, Leuciscus rutilus fluviatilis Yakovlev 1873, Leuciscus rutilus terekensis Rossikov 1895, Leuciscus rutilus vobla Dikson 1909, Leuciscus rutilus wobla Grimm 1896, Leuciscus rutilus L., Leuciscus selysii Selys-Longchamps 1842, Leucos cenisophius 1841, Leucos cenisophius Bonaparte 1845, Leucos pigulus Bonaparte 1844, Rutilus rutilus aralensis phragmiteti 1932, Rutilus rutilus aralensis Berg 1916, Rutilus rutilus bucharensis Nikolsky 1933, Rutilus rutilus carpathorossicus Vladykov 1930, Rutilus rutilus caspicus geoktshaicus Barach 1941, Rutilus rutilus caspicus knipowitschi Pravdin 1927, Rutilus rutilus caspicus kurensis Berg 1932, Rutilus rutilus caspicus tscharchalensis Berg 1932, Rutilus rutilus frici Misik 1957, Rutilus rutilus goplensis Stangenberg 1938, Rutilus rutilus lacustris menschikowi Kirillov 1962, Rutilus rutilus lacustris Pallas 1814, Rutilus rutilus mariza Drensky 1926, Rutilus rutilus rutilus L., Rutilus rutilus schelkovnikovi Derjavin 1926, Rutilus rutilus sucharensis Stangenberg 1938, Rutilus rutilus uzboicus Berg 1932, Rutilus rutilus vegariticus Stephanidis 1950, Rutilus vegariticus Stephanidis 1950, Leuciscus rutilus daugawensis Dybowski 1862
Common names: almindelig skalle (Danish), babuscä (Romanian), babushka (Bulgarian), belice (Czech), blanchet (French), blankvoorn (Dutch), brunhövd (German), echatout (French), furn (German), gardon (French), gardon blanc (French), gråskalle (Danish), kolme, mort (Norwegian), pardelha-dos-alpes (Portuguese), plätze (German), plitka (Ukrainian), ploc (Polish), plotice obecná (Czech), plotva (Russian), plotze (French), plötze (German), radounek (Czech), rhufell (Welsh), ridde (German), roach (French), roche (French), rotaltel (German), rotaschel (German), rotauge (German), rotte (German), rutilo (Italian), rutilo (Portuguese), rutilo (Spanish), schmahl (German), Siberian roach (French), skalle (Danish), taran (Russian), tarran (Bulgarian), tsironi (Greek), zicke (German)
Organism type: fish
Rutilus rutilus, commonly known as the roack, is a freshwater fish that is native to many parts of Europe and Asia. It is able to cope with brackish conditions and is an omnivorous species that is able to adapt its diet to what is available. R. rutilus is now widespread throughout Europe and is noted to be invasive in Ireland and Italy. In Ireland, it has been observed to not only alter species composition of fish communities, but to altering lake conditions.
lakes, water courses
Native range: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iran, Islamic Republic of, Ireland, Isle of Man, Italy, Jersey, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan. (Freyhof & Kottelat 2008).
Known introduced range: Australia, Azores, Cyprus, Madagascar, Morocco, Portugal. (FishBase 2010).
Preventative measures: The use of potentially invasive alien species for aquaculture and their accidental release/or escape can have negative impacts on native biodiversity and ecosystems. Hewitt et al, (2006) Alien Species in Aquaculture: Considerations for responsible use aims to first provide decision makers and managers with information on the existing international and regional regulations that address the use of alien species in aquaculture, either directly or indirectly; and three examples of national responses to this issue (Australia, New Zealand and Chile). The publication also provides recommendations for a ‘simple’ set of guidelines and principles for developing countries that can be applied at a regional or domestic level for the responsible management of Alien Species use in aquaculture development. These guidelines focus primarily on marine systems, however may equally be applied to freshwater.
Copp et al, (2005) Risk identification and assessment of non-native freshwater fishes presents a conceptual risk assessment approach for freshwater fish species that addresses the first two elements (hazard identification, hazard assessment) of the UK environmental risk strategy. The paper presents a few worked examples of assessments on species to facilitate discussion. The electronic Decision-support tools- Invasive-species identification tool kits that includes a freshwater and marine fish invasives scoring kit are made available on the Cefas (Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science) page for free download (subject to Crown Copyright (2007-2008)).
Compiled by: IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group with support from the Overseas Territories Environmental Programme (OTEP) project XOT603, a joint project with the Cayman Islands Government - Department of Environment
Last Modified: Thursday, 7 October 2010